From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shubham Barai <shubhambaraiss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
Date: | 2018-03-12 06:47:48 |
Message-ID: | 61F92BBF-D100-4D66-902A-E1219B0E2FDA@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
> 12 марта 2018 г., в 1:54, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> написал(а):
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I suggest to create a new function GinPredicateLockPage() that checks
> whether fast update is enabled for the index. The current arrangement
> looks too repetitive and it seems easy to make a mistake.
>
> BTW, should we also skip CheckForSerializableConflictIn() when
> fast update is enabled? AFAICS, now it doesn't cause any errors or
> false positives, but makes useless load. Is it correct?
>
BTW to BTW. I think we should check pending list size with GinGetPendingListCleanupSize() here
+
+ /*
+ * If fast update is enabled, we acquire a predicate lock on the entire
+ * relation as fast update postpones the insertion of tuples into index
+ * structure due to which we can't detect rw conflicts.
+ */
+ if (GinGetUseFastUpdate(ginstate->index))
+ PredicateLockRelation(ginstate->index, snapshot);
Because we can alter alter index set (fastupdate = off), but there still will be pending list.
We were discussing this with Shubham back in July, chosen some approach that seemed better, but I can't remember what was that...
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Luzanov | 2018-03-12 06:49:29 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
Previous Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2018-03-12 06:21:33 | Re: Inconsistent behavior in serializable snapshot |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-12 14:53:34 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-11 21:15:42 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |